A retrospective study of drug‐related problems in Australian aged care homes: medication reviews involving pharmacists and general practitioners

Background Drug‐related problems (DRPs) in Australian aged care homes have been studied previously. However, little is known about the acceptance and implementation of pharmacists' recommendations by general practitioners (GPs) to resolve DRPs. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to investigate the number and nature of DRPs identified by accredited clinical pharmacists. The secondary objective was to study the GP acceptance and implementation of pharmacist recommendations to resolve DRPs. Methods This was a retrospective study of 500 randomly selected, de‐identified medication reviews performed by 10 accredited clinical pharmacists over 6 months across 62 aged care homes. The DRPs identified by pharmacists were subsequently classified by the drugs involved, types of problem (indication, effectiveness and safety) and medical diagnoses of the patient. GP written feedback on the medication review reports determined implementation of pharmacists' recommendations to resolve the DRPs. Results A total of 1433 DRPs were identified in 480 of the 500 residents. Potential DRPs were frequently classified as risk of adverse drug reactions, need for additional monitoring and inappropriate choice of a drug. Alimentary, cardiovascular, central nervous system and respiratory drugs were most frequently implicated, accounting for more than 75% of the DRPs. GPs' acceptance and implementation of pharmacists recommendations were 72.5% (95% CI; 70.2, 74.8) and 58.1% (95% CI; 55.5, 60.6), respectively. Conclusions Over 96% of the residents had potential DRPs identified by pharmacists. GP acceptance of pharmacists' recommendations was independent of the drug category, but not independent of the disease category.     

The contribution of patient interviews to the identification of drug‐related problems in home medication review

What is known and Objective: To determine to what extent patient interviews contribute to the identification of drug‐related problems (DRPs) in home medication reviews, in terms of number, type and clinical relevance. Methods: We performed a cross‐sectional study within the intervention arm of a randomized controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 10 Dutch community pharmacies. Patients were eligible if they were home‐dwelling, aged 65 years and over and used five or more different drugs, including at least one cardiovascular or antidiabetic drug. The community pharmacist interviewed the patient at home about the medicines and identified potential DRPs in combination with medication and clinical records. This medication review was assessed and modified by an independent pharmacist reviewers’ panel. Outcomes were the number and type of DRPs and recommendations and percentage of clinical relevant DRPs. Clinical relevance of DRPs was assessed by DRPs assigned a high priority, DRPs followed by recommendations for drug change and DRPs followed by implemented recommendations for drug change. Results: A total of 1565 potential DRPs and recommendations (10 per patient).were identified for 155 patients (median age, 76 years; 54% women). Fifty‐eight per cent of all recommendations involved a drug change; 27% of all DRPs were identified during patient interviews and 74% from medication and clinical records. Compared to DRPs identified from patient medication and clinical records, DRPs identified during patient interviews were more frequently assigned a high priority (OR = 1·8 [1·4–2·2]), were more frequently associated with recommendations for drug change (OR = 2·4 [1·9–3·1]) and were implemented recommendations for drug change (OR = 2·8 [2·1–3·7]). What is new and Conclusion: This study shows that more than a quarter of all DRPs were identified during patient interviews. DRPs identified during patient interviews were more frequently assigned a higher clinical relevance.     

Prevalence of medication-related problems among patients with renal compromise in an Indian hospital

What is known and Objective: Patients suffering from renal dysfunction often have multiple medical conditions either as a cause or as a consequence of their renal disease. These patients receive an average of 10–12 medications daily leading to complex dosing schedules and are more likely to develop medication‐related problems (MRPs). The objectives of this study were to determine the nature and extent of MRPs in renally compromised patients and to explore the potential clinical significance of the MRPs. The potential for a clinical pharmacist to contribute towards resolving or preventing some of these MRPs was also explored. Methods: A prospective study was conducted for a period of 9 months in the renal unit of Jagadguru Shri Shivaratheeshwara (JSS) Medical College Hospital, Mysore, India. Patients undergoing dialysis on outpatient basis and patients who were admitted under the care of or referred to the nephrologists for renal dysfunction from other specialties were reviewed. Patterns of the MRPs were identified using an adapted Hepler and Strand criteria. The potential clinical significance of the MRPs and the contribution of the clinical pharmacist in resolving or minimizing some of the MRPs were also explored. Results and Discussion: Three hundred and twenty‐seven MRPs were identified with 308 patients reviewed. The incidence of MRPs was found to be 1·06 ± 0·85 per patient reviewed. The most common MRP identified in our study was overdose (19·3%) followed by adverse drug reactions (19·0%). Cardiovascular agents (33·6%) followed by anti‐infective agents (26·3%) were the most common therapeutic classes of medication implicated in causing MRPs. Twenty‐six per cent of the MRPs identified were explored to be potentially moderate or major in clinical significance. The clinical pharmacists’ recommendations were accepted in 97% of the cases, which resulted in a change in therapy in 83% of the cases. What is new and Conclusion: Medication‐related problems are frequent in renally compromised patients in our patient population. The high level of acceptance of clinical pharmacist’s recommendations by the nephrologists demonstrates that clinical pharmacists may help improve overall patient care in this setting.     

Validation of a method for recording pharmaceutical interventions

What is known and objective: The validation of a method for recording pharmaceutical interventions measures the instrument’s ability to provide consistent values when the same analysis is performed several times. Our aim was to validate the inter‐rater reliability of the method used to record pharmaceutical interventions in our hospital. Methods: We recorded interventions in a database, entering variables related to the patient, treatment and impact of the recommendation. We also recorded the type, cause and clinical significance of the negative outcome associated with use of the medicinal product (NOM). Twenty interventions performed during a 3‐year study period (2007–2009) were randomly tested for consistency to analyse the kappa (κ) coefficient statistic of the recommendations as coded by nine senior and junior clinical pharmacists. Results and discussion: There were 87·8% global consistency for NOM cause, 66·1% for intervention impact and 95·0% for NOM type. Agreement was substantial for ‘intervention reasons’, with a κ value of 0·74 (95%CI 0·61–0·87), fair for ‘intervention impact’, with a κ value of 0·24 (95%CI 0·15–0·32) and excellent for ‘NOM type’, with a κ value of 0·87 (95%CI 0·71–1·00), respectively. Our results are globally good, especially with regard to the analysis of intervention reasons and NOM type, which matches other authors’ findings. Furthermore, our validation method is suitable for recording and considering the impact of pharmaceutical interventions. What is new and conclusion: We describe a systematic method for clinical pharmacists to record their activities and assess their value. This methodology should help in the development of clinical pharmacy in Spain and should be translatable to other settings.     

Evaluation of clinical pharmacist interventions on drug interactions in outpatient pharmaceutical HIV-care

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of intervention in drug interactions of antiretroviral drugs with coadministered agents by a clinical pharmacist in outpatient HIV-treatment. METHODS: The study design included two intervention arms (A and B), which were both preceded by a control observation period. In arm A, a complete list of the currently used drugs, extracted from pharmacy records was provided to the treating physician. In arm B the same list was provided but with a notification when a drug interaction was present and an advice how to handle this. The infectious disease specialist obtained the information before the patient's visit to the outpatient clinic (time point 0). Three months prior (time point -3) and 3 months after (time point +3) the intervention, pharmacy records were also screened for drug interactions. The number of drug interactions (total and per patient) was determined at the three different time points (-3, 0, +3). In addition, drug interactions encountered at time points -3 and 0 were checked for their presence at time points 0 and +3, respectively, for both intervention arms. RESULTS: Arms A and B included 115 and 105 patients, respectively. Patient characteristics of both intervention arms were similar at time point 0. The number of interactions and the number of patients with interactions were similar in both intervention arms at time point 0. There were 42 and 40 potential drug interactions in 30 and 24 patients in arms A and B, respectively. The reduction in the number of interactions per patient over time and after intervention was small but significant, and was equal in both intervention arms. The advice of the clinical pharmacist had thus no additional value. CONCLUSION: Both interventions were effective in reducing the number of drug interactions per patient. The advice of a clinical pharmacist was, however, redundant in the studied setting.     

Computerized physician order entry system combined with on-ward pharmacist: analysis of pharmacists' interventions

Rationale, aims and objectives To analyse pharmacists' interventions in a setting where a computerized physician order entry system (CPOE) is in use and a pharmacist works on the ward. Method A prospective cohort study was conducted in seven wards of a French teaching hospital using CPOE along with the presence of a full‐time on‐ward pharmacy resident. We documented the characteristics of pharmacists' interventions communicated to physicians during the medication order validation process whenever a drug‐related problem was identified. Independent predictors of the physician's acceptance of the pharmacist's intervention were assessed using multiple logistic regression analysis. Results The 448 pharmacists' interventions concerned: non‐conformity to guidelines or contraindications (22%), too high doses (19%), drug interactions (15%) and improper administration (15%). The interventions consisted of changes in drug choice (41%), dose adjustment (23%), drug monitoring (19%) and optimization of administration (17%). Interventions were communicated via the CPOE in 57% of cases and 43% orally. The rate of physicians' acceptance was 79.2%. In multivariate analysis, acceptance was significantly associated with the physician's status [higher for residents vs. seniors: OR = 7.23, CI 95 (2.37–22.10), P < 0.01], method of communication [higher for oral vs. computer communication: OR = 12.5, CI 95 (4.16–37.57), P < 0.01] and type of recommendation [higher for drug monitoring vs. drug choice recommendations: OR = 10.32, CI 95 (3.20–33.29), P < 0.01]. Conclusions When a clinical pharmacist is present on a ward in which a CPOE is in use, the pharmacists' interventions are well accepted by physicians. Specific predictors of the acceptance by physicians emerge, but further research as to the impact of CPOE on pharmacist–physician communication is needed.